Pascal Bruckner defends Ayaan Hirsi Ali against Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash, condemning their idea of multiculturalism for chaining people to their roots.
We are nuts. Or at least the MSM are. Here is the United States of America, five years after the biggest armed assault on the American homeland since the War of 1812, when the White House was burned down by the Redcoats. Five years ago the White House and Congress were barely spared, but only because the passengers on Flight 94 took matters into their own hands, and died as a result.
We now have millions of hyperactive enemies around the world who are sworn to repeat that attack with bigger and bigger bombs, until the United States is dead --- unless we surrender to a throwback creed straight out of the 7th century Arabian desert. Our sworn enemies are constantly infiltrating the West, and nobody can stop them from flooding London, Paris and Berlin. Our "allies" in Europe are helping by feverishly blaming us, hoping that the crocodile will eat them last. Russia is turning into a mafia state, openly assassinating its enemies in London and Eastern Europe. The West is paralyzed.
Nuclear weapons are now spreading to fourth-rate tyrants like Kim and Ahmadinejad and Chavez. We still have no defense against ballistic missiles because our liberals just never cottoned to the idea. And our only vigorous response to the mass terror attack of 9/11/01 is grinding to a halt in Iraq, not for any failure of our military, but due to open sabotage by our Leftist media and the Demagogue Party, which now controls the US Congress.
The election of 2008 will therefore be one of the most consequential ones in American history - comparable to Lincoln in 1860. And what do we get from our brain-dead media? They fall all over themselves to celebrate the emptiest suit in the country, because he looks good in swimming trunks --- a clear demonstration of his readiness to assume the office of President of the United States.
Am I the only one who thinks this is insane?
Barack Hussein Obama may be a fine fellow for all I know, but his qualifications are unbearably light:
One, he's a smooth talker;
Two, he's a Democrat of Color; and
Three, he has no track record. Zilch. Zero. Nada.
What a guy! In the year 2007, those are good enough reasons to set off weeks of Obamasms from our conehead media.
Where are the FDRs and Trumans on the Left? Where are the JFKs and LBJs, who at least had some substance --- for all of their gigantic flaws?
Where's the gravitas? We seem to live in an age of lightweight leftists, at least of the male variety.
Compared to JFK, who was a real war hero, John Kerry's macho act was just pathetic. Al Gore is nothing but a blowhard, and John Edwards makes Obama look like a Deep Thinker. Where's the substance?
Hillary may have the best qualifications of all of them, with eight years of actual White House experience, crushing bimbo eruptions. You can't pay for hands-on training like that.
Where's Art Buchwald when we need him?
We have the most irresponsible media in our history. The best thing they have done so far is to start firing people. But they have a long, long way to go before sanity dawns.
Meanwhile the country is teetering on the brink. The new buzzword for the Left is "vulture politics." The Democrats are waiting for Iraq to fail, so they can pick over the pieces.
Bring on Obama!
James Lewis is the nom de plume of an academic scientist. He blogs at www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com
The surge is underway, and more rapidly than many of us were expecting. The influx of new troops into Iraq? No, of candidates into the 2008 presidential contest.
So far this month, Senators Hillary Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois, and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, plus Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico -- Democrats all -- have formally launched White House campaigns (or "exploratory committees"). Already in the race were former senators John Edwards of North Carolina and Mike Gravel of Alaska, former governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
Eight Democrats, eight would-be commanders-in-chief -- all running for president in a time of war. So which of them, on getting into the race, had this to say about the nature of the enemy confronting us?
"We are engaged in a war against an axis of Islamists, extremists, and terrorists. It is an axis of evil. It has headquarters in Tehran and Waziristan. But because of the unconventional nature of this war, it also has headquarters in cities throughout Europe and Asia and Africa and the United States of America, in cells that operate in the shadows but are prepared to strike us again as they did on September 11th, 2001.
"The enemy we are fighting is . . . totalitarian. It is inhumane. It has a violent ideology and a goal of expansionism and totalitarianism. It threatens our security, our values, our way of life as seriously, in my opinion, as fascism and communism did in the last century."
Can't match that assessment of the global jihad with the Democratic candidate who uttered it? Don't feel bad; it was a trick question. Those words were actually spoken by Senator Joseph Lieberman at a forum on Iraq this month. Lieberman shared the podium with GOP colleague John McCain, who was no less blunt in his evaluation of the war and its stakes.
For McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful, the struggle against the Islamists is the paramount issue of the day. His campaign website, while spare, highlights a recent speech in which McCain called stopping radical Islam "our most important moral obligation." He described the jihadists as "moral monsters but . . . also a disciplined, dedicated movement driven by an apocalyptic religious zeal, which celebrates martyrdom and murder."
Sounding nearly as resolute is former governor Mitt Romney, whose campaign website puts "Defeating the Jihadists" first in its list of key campaign issues. "The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and its allies," Romney is quoted as saying, "with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate -- a theocracy." Speaking in Israel yesterday, Romney asserted that "a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam," through means both military and ideological.
The Democratic candidates, by contrast, are virtually silent on the subject.
Barack Obama launched his exploratory committee with an online video that mentioned the economy, healthcare, vanishing pensions, college costs, and the fractiousness of partisan politics. His only nod to national security was a passing reference to the war in Iraq, which he opposes. But 9/11 and its aftermath? The worldwide jihad? The global conflict between democratic freedom and Taliban-style repression? Not a word.
Hillary Clinton's highly praised kickoff video likewise included nothing about the overriding threat of our time. Her website does contain a speech she gave at the Council on Foreign Relations last October, but it is filled with vague rhetoric about diplomacy and international conferences and how we must address the "troubled conditions terrorists seek out." New Yorkers don't need to be told "that we are in a war against terrorists who seek to do us harm," Clinton says. But if she recognizes that the future of the civilized world depends on winning that war, she shows little sign of it.
What is true of Obama and Clinton is more or less true of Edwards, Richardson, and the others. The Democrats seem prepared to emulate John Kerry, who insisted in 2004 that "we have to get back to the place we were" before 9/11. Back, that is, to treating Islamist terrorism not as "the focus of our lives," but merely as "a nuisance" that we need "to reduce" -- like gambling, he said, or prostitution.
Heading into the 2008 campaign, our political universe is still divided. On one side are those who see the Islamists as a nuisance to be controlled. On the other: those who regard them as an existential enemy to be destroyed. On the relative strength of those two camps, the next election may well depend.
Well, they're very important to me as well. There's nothing more important, and you know, ever since I became a Senator from New York, your state and mine, I have worried about 9/11 and terrorism and Afghanistan and Iraq. I have said many times that, if we had known then, when the president came to the Congress to ask for authority to pursue what he said would be an effort to contain Saddam Hussein and put inspectors in to make sure that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, if we had known everything that we now know, the president would never have asked for such authority, and the Congress would never have voted to give it to him. And I certainly would not have voted to do so.
But all these years later, we are faced with a very dangerous situation, and what I've tried to focus on, starting, you know, shortly after the invasion, when I began pointing out the problem saw and raising questions about the policy that was being pursued from my position on the armed Armed Services Committee, we have to make better decisions now than this President was made in the past. That's why I went again, my third trip to Afghanistan and Iraq last weekend, and I tried to make my own assessment. And when I returned, I reaffirmed my opposition to the President's strategy of escalation, putting March American troops into Baghdad, into Iraq.
Instead, I think we should cap the number of troops, and we should begin to put real conditions on the Iraqi government. I've said, look, I don't want to cut money for American troops. I've been to too many events and places like our military hospital in Germany, where I stopped on the way back, where I met with our wounded servicemen and women. I don't want to do anything that in any way undercuts their ability to protect themselves and to do what they need to do in the combat arenas where they are being placed.
But I do think we should threaten to cut the funding for the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police force and the security for the Iraqi leaders, which we pay for, unless they make some of the decisions that we've been expecting them to make for a number of years. I don't understand why this president has given them such a blank check, and I think we need to make clear there is no open-ended commitment.
We need a phased redeployment of our troops. We need to try to bring them home as safely and as soon as it is possible. But let me add that America does have some remaining very vital security interests. The Al Qaeda in Iraq, they weren't there before, they are there now. They pose a threat not only to our troops in Iraq but to our friends in the region and even to us here at home. We have to make sure we do everything we can to try to prevent them from using their horrendous terrorist tactics against Americans and against other innocent people.
We also need to try to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in Iraq and in the region. And prevent its continuing effort to obtain a nuclear weapon which would be so dangerous not only to the region but also to Israel and our country and really to the stability of the world. So, yes, I would certainly, you know, wish that we didn't have the situation we face now, but I'm going to continue to do what I can to try to be as responsible as possible to get our troops home but also to deal with the dangers that have been unleashed there.
LH note - I personally think its worth giving Maliki a last chance, and so I support the surge. However her reasons for opposing it are not irrational, not indicative that she doesnt care about winning the WOT. Her position on Iran is right on, and indicates a better understanding of the conflict she will like face as President than many have.
#4
liberalhawk would hold the honourable Senator's feet to the fire on all aspects of the war on terror, which would prove very interesting. A pity he's a mere working slob like the rest of us. Unfortunately, I don't see any possibility that Senator Clinton can hold on to both the left wing of her party and win the center in the general election. Hopefully this is the election in which the Democrats finally choose between their rabid Progressives and their more reality-based center-left constituencies that the rest of us can live with.... and finally jettison the frothing ones.
#5
hold on to the center while winning the left? Geez, thats where you guys come in. Hillary runs to the center (thats shes not moving further left than she is even know confirms that) All you hard right folks are gonna go on and on about Hitlery, Socialized Medicine, Whitewater, etc. Rush Limbaugh starts shouting. The left, as much as they dont like Hilary, cant control themselves when y'all start going on like that. They wont be able to sit home. It will hurt too much.
At least thats my hope.
I also think rank and file liberal voters simply dont relate to things the same way leftie bloggers and so forth do. Most of them dont know what the hell the DLC is, or keep track of every subtle twist of foreign policy.
'Hawk, echoing some comments I made over in the Weasel Wesley Clark thread, I think there's a lot more of you in the rank and file of your party than there are irrational antiwar types. The problem with your party is that there are more irrational antiwar types in positions of power than there are (ahem) liberal hawks such as yourself. The Dems are a much more hierarchical organization than a lot of folks realize--a third of national convention delegates are unelected!--and the people with their hands on the levers of power in the party do not think we're at war, or don't want us to win, or don't mind losing a war if they can win an election.
If I could believe Hillary means what she says, I probably still wouldn't vote for her, but I wouldn't consider the prospect of a Hillary presidency too disturbing. The key word in that previous sentence is "if"--given the history of the Clinton administration, I don't think I can trust her. I think she says what she thinks she needs to say to get and keep power. She may well have convictions and principles beyond naked self-interest, but I don't know what they are and neither do you. If something truly awful happens on her watch--say, a mushroom cloud over Dearborn or Tel Aviv--I can't be confident she'd respond in a proper fashion because I don't know what would be guiding her thinking. She may not even know what she'd do.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/24/2007 16:32 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"I think she says what she thinks she needs to say to get and keep power. She may well have convictions and principles beyond naked self-interest, but I don't know what they are and neither do you."
I find that notion that anyone could take anything Hillary Clinton says at face value, to be utterly bogglesome. I simply can't comprehend naivete of that magnitude. Hillary will say whatever her calculations tell her she needs to say to get the reaction she wants.
"If something truly awful happens on her watch--say, a mushroom cloud over Dearborn or Tel Aviv--I can't be confident she'd respond in a proper fashion because I don't know what would be guiding her thinking. She may not even know what she'd do."
Best indication of what she'd do would be what her husband did following the 1993 WTC bombing: treat the attack as a criminal act-- and ONLY a criminal act-- and sic the FBI on the perpetrators.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/24/2007 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I think the Global War on Terror is important, I say, let's have a discussion.
Posted by: Hillary Clinton ||
01/24/2007 19:09 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Yeah, and BTW, Mike, who'd miss Dearborn?
Actually, I think that (some) of the nominees would react to Mike's hypothetical in the appropriate manner. If we got nuked, I don't think even Hillary could contain the "American Street."
But, shortly thereafter, all would be forgotten, and she'd work hard to turn it back into a law enforcement issue.
Posted by: BA ||
01/24/2007 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Or we could save a lot of time and effort and risk to lives of free men and women with a simple declaration: If you attempt to develop nuclear weapons technology without our permission, or we suspect of so doing, we will use nuclear weapons preemptively to prevent you.
Of course, this is not going to happen. Though for the life of me I cannot understand why not. What on earth is the logic of allowing our sworn enemies - blood-thirsty barbarians from the Dark Ages - use our own weapons against us? What people in history would have tolerated this farce? Or is that going to be a question left to some future historian pondering this time after the long centuries of the next islamic Dark Age.
#4
How can we make such a conditional statement, Excalibur, when we're certain that they are working to develop nuclear weapons? Such a statement might have worked when the information first got out, but now the only thing we could say is, "Because we believe you are attempting to develop... bombing has commenced."
#7
"The logic of the new force deployments President George W. Bush has approved for the Middle East appeared geared towards launching an air strike against Iran or deterring Iranian retaliation rather than preparing for a major change in U.S. strategy to win the war in Iraq."
Id say the latter. As some have pointed out its not just the force totals that are changing but the mission. In that we are going after the Mahdi army, to the extent it gets in the way of stabilizing baghdad. To put the hurt on Sadr, we have to be in a position to deter Iran from trying anything, and thats what this is about, I think.
As to the numbers, SW is omitting the US troops already in Baghdad, and the Iraqi troops. And that we may not try to clear and hold the entire city. Certainly not with US troops alone. IIUC, that is.
#8
We have spent 50 years cultivating the idea that nuclear weapons are too horrible to use, when in fact that is not true. However, with the Soviet Union and the UNSC, we created a diplomatic regime based on that idea.
The diplomatic effort was to create international protocols so vicious that nobody would start a limited nuclear war, even via proxy. That nobody could use just a single nuke and walk away from it.
So we reach the position that the US will use nuclear weapons against no one but another major power, or in response to chemical or nuclear attack. We feel confident that our conventional forces can so brutally punish anyone else that the use of nukes would be counterproductive.
That being said, I may brag a bit by predicting some time ago what the US would have to do to fight Iran, namely first create extensive layered anti-missile systems over perhaps a 270 degree front against Iran.
Next, which I predict if and when we come to blows, will be both that we destroy their nuclear assets from the air, and hopefully, that we reduce their military and Revolutionary Guard units.
This latter is my final prediction, that though we may reduce Iran's nuclear capability by air power alone, we must go a step further than we did with Saddam's Iraq, in creating no-fly zones in the North and South. We must partition Iran, so that it again becomes just Persia.
Only by doing so will Persia be denied the money and resources to rebuild. Otherwise, we will have to screw around with them for a decade like we did with Saddam, and eventually have to have a second Iranian war.
As an added bonus to partitioning, we will create a very friendly nation of greater Kurdistan, a very friendly nation of greater Iraq, including its new Iranian territory of Khuzestan, and raise Musharaff of Pakistan by enlarging that state.
All of whom will form a strong core of American friendship in the region, despite what Persia thinks.
#9
DR. FEELGOOD, or HOW I LEARNED TO WORRY BY NOT USING THE BOMB. Dubya knows that the ME + NORTH KOREA-TAIWAN, etc now Africa are part of one conflict = battle, iff only becuz the Radics want it that way.
Left-leaning pundit Jonathan Chait, writing at the Left-leaning New Republic's group blog, "The Plank."
I've admired Wes Clark for a long time. But his comments to Ariana Huffington about wealthy Jews pushing the country toward war with Iran strike me as nutty and disturbing. Either I seriously misjudged the man, or his comments were misquoted or taken wildly out of context. Here's a hint: they weren't misquoted or taken wildly out of context.
[Left-leaning American Prospect pundit]
Matthew Yglesias, however, thinks Clark's comments are perfectly spot-on. Indeed, he says they're not just correct but obviously so. As he writes, "Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true."
Well, I don't know it's true. Moreover, I find Yglesias's defense of the proposition that it's obviously true, and his further contention that criticism of Clark's comments amounts to Israel hawks stifling debate, to be wildly unconvincing.
Really, though, does being alarmed about Iran mean you favor war? I'm extremely alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, but I think an American military strike would create more problems than it would solve. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
01/24/2007 11:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I read that, too, and while I thought Chait's piece was boring, the comments were fascinating. There was one which said, in essence: "It's interesting how the charge of anti-Semitism is now used to stifle criticism. Clark an anti-Semite? Come on! Does anyone really believe Clark hates Jews?"
Why no, I'm sure he doesn't hate Jews. He just apparently believes that Jewish campaign contributions drive the Administration's foreign policy toward Israeli interests and away from American interests. In other words, rich Jews secretly control US foreign policy. What could possibly be anti-Semitic about that?
Yglesias says: The irony factor, however, seems worth noting as, though I didn't mention it in the article, The New Republic is clearly one of the major American Jewish organizations pushing for war with Iran and this post is part of the push.
Is it my imagination, or did Yglesias just say: "Chait's Jew-masters made him write this to encourage war against Iran."? There's your irony factor.
#3
Perhaps they are sensing the Jews are gonna leave the Democratic party and are preparing excuses beforehand.
Wonder what Clarke thinks of George Soros as he's the most obvious example of a rich Jew trying to ram his politics down the throat of Americans with his bankaccount. I don't think he's getting through to the Bush admin though.
#4
It would not surprise me to hear coded, or even uncoded, anti-Semitism (and anti-Catholicism, but that's another topic for another day) coming from the podium at the '08 Dem convention.
Don't forget anti-Mormonism if Romney's the nominee.
It WOULD be interesting to see how the left's bigotry will be treated in comparison to, say, and "anti-Islamic" statement made at the Republican convention.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
01/24/2007 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Clark is at like 2% in the polls. Just behind the Joe Biden behemoth, and just ahead of Dennis Kucinich. While its early, I dont see any excitement about him among Dems. Hes always been a bit of a loose cannon type - stories about him almost starting a war with the Russians in kosovo, and some senior officers having real problems with his personality. Frankly he always gave me the creeps. And oh yeah, he voted for Reagan back in the 80s, didnt he?
Its been so long since ive read Yglesias ive forgotten how much of a jerk he can be. That hes piling on TNR is not surprising. TNR for years has been the smartest liberal (but hawkish) voice out there. Lots of folks have been gunning for them for years, and now that they look really wrong on Iraq, its every lefties chance to take them down, and hope they dont get up. I have every expectation that TNR will survive and will recover.
Posted by: ed ||
01/24/2007 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"I don't think it's anti-Semitic to say that the pro-Israel lobby has considerable influence in American politics, and could flex its muscle on issues like foreign aid to Israel, just as the pharmaceutical lobby can heavily influence health care legislation or the gun lobby can squelch gun control."
I love the standard Dem whipping boys references there. Lord knows liberal lobbies would never attempt to heavily influence any legislation.
#9
Chait: "I'm shocked, shocked, to find gambling antisemitism going on here on the left!"
Wake up and grow up, Jonathan. The left can't stand the jews or Israel. Paleo-love is right up there with Fidel and Che idolism
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/24/2007 19:01 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Don't slag him too hard, Frank. He's catching on. Some people take a while to come around, but when they do, they end up on the side of the angels.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/24/2007 20:43 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Its been so long since ive read Yglesias ive forgotten how much of a jerk he can be.
*snicker* A very pretty insult, liberalhawk. Not only a jerk, but so uninteresting you long since chose to neglect his writings in favour of sites like Rantburg.
To learn why a resurgent Taliban is fighting American and NATO troops to a military draw in Afghanistan, you have to go to the frontier region on both sides of the Pakistan- Afghanistan border. Our colleague, Carlotta Gall, did just that last month and what she learned led to a physical assault on her by Pakistani intelligence officials and five hours in custody for her photographer, Akhtar Soomro. The Pakistani agents broke into her hotel room and copied her notes and computer files. They then tracked down and questioned everyone she had interviewed in Quetta, a border city.
We now know why. Gall's reporting has determined that Quetta is an important rear base for the Taliban, and that the Pakistani authorities are encouraging and perhaps sponsoring the cross-border insurgency. That is a role that Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, denies. But residents of the border area, opposition figures and Western diplomats point to specific cases of Pakistani involvement. Americans need to know more about this collusion and to demand better answers from Musharraf.
There are many reasons that things are now going badly for the U.S.-backed Afghan government. America shortchanged Afghanistan's security in its rush to invade Iraq. European allies have inexcusably failed to provide NATO with enough soldiers to carry out the expanded Afghan security mission it took on last year and have imposed hobbling restrictions on the activities of those they did send. The government of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, is rife with corruption, and the regional warlord allies it depends on to control outlying areas are even more thieving as well as shockingly brutal.
These problems all need to be addressed. But the positive results will be limited as long as Afghanistan's much more populous and powerful neighbor, Pakistan, provides rear support and sanctuary for the Taliban insurgency. It is simply impossible to believe that this support takes place without the approval of the Pakistani military, the country's dominant institution for a half-century.
Pakistan is now the third-largest recipient of American foreign aid. Yet more than five years after the Sept. 11th attacks, the Bush administration has still not been able to secure Pakistan's active and consistent support against the Taliban. The very least Washington should be demanding of Musharraf is that he enforce an immediate halt on Pakistani military support for the Taliban insurgents who are crossing the border and killing American troops.
For a nation bitterly divided over Iraq, the one point of agreement seems to be that Lt. Gen. David Petraeus is the right commander for U.S. forces in Baghdad. That gives Petraeus a surge of the most important strategic asset in this war -- which is time. But it also locks him into an awkward role for a professional military officer, as chief public spokesman for a war the public has come to doubt.
As long as Iraq was "Bush's war,'' it looked like a lost cause. This week, it became in part "Petraeus' war.'' The fundamentals on the ground appear as bleak as ever, and polls show the public doubts the war is winnable. But Petraeus offers something new: He is the last frail hope for a bipartisan consensus on Iraq.
Petraeus won plaudits Tuesday from nearly every member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, continuing the celebratory tone that greeted his nomination by President Bush. Even Sen. Edward Kennedy, one of the sharpest critics of the war, had good things to say about the new commander. It was a momentary honeymoon from acrimonious debate.
The accolades for Petraeus symbolize a deeper change, one that carries benefits and risks for the general and the troops he will lead. Bush and his senior advisers have been wrong so many times on Iraq that the public no longer trusts them to frame a successful strategy. So now the public face of the war passes to a bright, ambitious general. It is an intensely political role, and it puts Petraeus in a hot seat that most military officers try to avoid.
Petraeus doesn't want to play politics. He tells friends that he doesn't vote in presidential elections, to maintain his political independence. In that, he emulates Gen. George Marshall, the architect of the Allied victory in World War II. But this is an inherently political command. As Petraeus answered questions Tuesday from Sen. John McCain -- who is building his presidential campaign on the need for a troop surge and ultimate victory in Iraq -- it was clear just how charged the commander's job will be. As the publicly anointed "last best hope'' of a failing war, his actions will shape the decisive issue of the 2008 campaign.
Petraeus has embraced this kind of high-risk mission before. Indeed, he seems to thrive on the public role that many military officers shun. When he took command of the training of Iraqi forces in mid-2004, Newsweek featured Petraeus on its cover and asked, "Can This Man Save Iraq?'' That notoriety engendered some ill will among other officers, who saw him as too eager for publicity. But, at this point, I sense that senior officers wish him well. He's taking on a supremely demanding job that most know they couldn't do. And he's betting his carefully groomed reputation on the relatively small chance that he can salvage an American victory.
The smartest thing Petraeus has done is to draw Congress into his confidence, as co-managers of the new strategy. In his testimony Tuesday, he promised regular progress reports and pledged he would tell Congress if he decided the new strategy can't succeed. The flip side is that Petraeus will tell Congress if he needs more troops, which may prove to be the case. Petraeus helped draft the new counterinsurgency field manual, which warns that successful operations "often require a high ratio of security forces to the protected population.'' It's hard to believe that 21,000 more troops will be enough to protect an Iraqi population in the midst of a civil war.
Petraeus knows how tough his new job will be: He told senators Tuesday that many of the e-mails he received over the past two weeks had as their subject line, "Congratulations, I think.'' Asked about troop morale, he gave an answer that will surely apply to him in the wearying, testing days ahead: "One day at a time, sometimes one foot in front of the other.''
I spent a week traveling with Petraeus in Iraq in 2004, and another week with him in 2005. As he visited with Iraqi troops, I often heard him repeat one of his trademark phrases: "We'll see who has tiny hearts'' -- meaning he would see who among the Iraqi officers was really willing to fight.
Petraeus is no "tiny heart.'' He believes in the power of his own will to overcome adversity and prevail on the battlefield. That self-confidence is a necessary quality for a commander, but it is not sufficient to assure success. Congress had a rare moment of unity Tuesday in wishing Petraeus good luck as he heads back to Iraq, even as Petraeus himself must be wondering, deep down, whether he has taken on Mission Impossible.
#2
The enemy is here and over there. Petraeus and anyone else would have a tough time with all the naysayers, doubting Thomases, and lily-livered liberals in congress.
Reporting last week on the construction of a new mosque in Atlanta, Georgia, the local newspaper noted: "By year's end, more than 1,500 worshippers will profess their faith in Allah here. They hope the mosque will help bridge the crater of suspicion created after the 2001 terrorist attacks."
In Australia, where remarks by a Muslim cleric have been causing controversy, Associated Press reported that the man in question, Sheikh Feiz Mohammed, had been "urging children to become 'soldiers defending Islam' and sacrifice their lives for Allah".
At a terrorism trial in Britain last week, a court was told that notes found in the home of one of the accused included (according to the Press Association) "a description of the components of fertiliser, while 'In the name of Allah' was also written on one of the pages ..."
These news items - a random sample from the last few days - reflect a silly but increasingly common practice of referring to God as "Allah" when talking about Muslims. There is no logical reason for this. Why use an Arabic word in English-language news reports when there is a perfectly good English word that means exactly the same thing?
Various Arabic words - "jihad" and "sheikh", for example - have crept into everyday usage because no precise equivalent exists in English, but "Allah" is not of that type. It is simply is the normal word that Arabic speakers use for "God" - whether they are Muslims or not. Arab Christians worship "Allah" too, and the first verse of the Arabic Bible informs us that "In the beginning Allah created heaven and earth."
#2
"These news items - a random sample from the last few days - reflect a silly but increasingly common practice of referring to "the Annointed one" as "Christ" when talking about Christians. There is no logical reason for this. Why use a Greek word in English-language news ports when there is a perfectly good English word that means exactly the same thing?
Various Greek words - "science" and "democracy", for example - have crept into everyday usage because no precise equivalent exists in English, but "Christs" is not of that type. It is simply is the normal word that Greek speakers use for "The Annointed One" - whether they are Christians or not. Greekspeaking Jews hope for the "Christ" too, and the first verse of the Greek Talmud informs us that "Christ shall raise the dead, and restore worship in the Temple."
As far as I'm aware the writers called Edward Said and Matthew Hogan are not god, God, Allah or even twin deities, so their Word doesn't necessarily have to be obeyed. Period. Same with Mr Whitaker. Another period.
It apostrophe s a bit tiring comma this spelt out punctuation comma isn apostrophe t it exclamation mark I think I apostrophe ll revert to the more conventional sort period
What a relief! Still saying "period" in a discussion is really handy, because it means that no one is allowed to challenge what you've just said. Unless, of course, they do.
#4
I prefer to have them continue to use Allah for the sake of clarity.
I think the headline has it backwards and its a sign of Dhimmihood to use God in both cases as it helps the Muslims seem 'just like Christians' when you use the term God for both.
#5
#4, I agree 100%. We want them identified. All their bags, rags, scarves, etc. are excellent ID's as targets. Let's keep it as easy as possible for us, so that when the time comes we can act with certainty.
#6
As a Christian, I've gotta say there IS a theological difference between God and Allah. One IS the same God (YHWH) as the Hebrews (Jews) worshipped. The other is a moon "god" created by a thieving, raping, pillaging, savage pedophile in order to enrich himself and make things he did o.k., even though Allan told him no one else could do it.
In ALL complete seriousness, there IS a difference between God (in the English) used with a capital letter (signifying the Judeo-Christian God) and a god (Allah) of the Muslim faith. Theologically (and in the way they act), they are 2 completely different creatures. PERIOD!
*See, we can close out an "argument" to shut off all debate too, Mr. writer-person*
Posted by: BA ||
01/24/2007 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
P.S., I completely HATE your term "Christian Jihadists". You haven't even begun to see "righteous fury" if you think we Christians are on a "jihad."
Reminds me of the bumper sticker I heard about recently: "Jesus IS coming back, and boy, is he p!ssed"
Posted by: BA ||
01/24/2007 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I also think Allan is a better substitute for the word Allah than God because it has clarity and snark value attached.
#9
They hope the mosque will help bridge the crater of suspicion created after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
I cannot speak for the crater of suspicion. But it will be a cold day in Hell before those evil bastards bridge the crater they left in lower Manhattan.
As for "Allah", we could use the perfectly good English name "Sauron" by way of substitution.
#11
It is simply is the normal word that Arabic speakers use for "God" - whether they are Muslims or not. Arab Christians worship "Allah" too, and the first verse of the Arabic Bible informs us that "In the beginning Allah created heaven and earth."
This is blasphemy before God and any learned scholar, priest, or devoted follower of either Judeaism or Christianity could tell you so. That is spews forth from the mouth of a Muslim cleric is simply another example of how this so-called religion, more exactly a cult, believes it can lie to the uninformed masses or the non-believers in order to further its own goals.
#14
"Mr. Akhbar" does simply radiate good manners, ryuge. It is, after all, entirely too forward to call a god by his first name before he gives permission. ;-)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Reporting last week on the construction of a new mosque in Atlanta, Georgia, the local newspaper noted: "By year's end, more than 1,500 worshippers will profess their faith in Allah here. They hope the mosque will help bridge the crater of suspicion created after the 2001 terrorist attacks."
